×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US, Israel Behind Flame Malware

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the apparently-they-did-start-the-fire dept.

Security 382

The Washington Post is reporting that the sophisticated 'Flame' malware was created by the United States and Israel in order to collect intelligence on Iranian computer networks. The intel was to be used in a cyber-sabotage campaign intended to slow Iran's development of nuclear weapons. This follows confirmation a few weeks ago that the U.S. and Israel were behind Stuxnet, which caused problems at Iran's nuclear facilities. From the article: "The emerging details about Flame provide new clues to what is thought to be the first sustained campaign of cyber-sabotage against an adversary of the United States. 'This is about preparing the battlefield for another type of covert action,' said one former high-ranking U.S. intelligence official, who added that Flame and Stuxnet were elements of a broader assault that continues today. 'Cyber-collection against the Iranian program is way further down the road than this.' ... The scale of the espionage and sabotage effort 'is proportionate to the problem that's trying to be resolved,' the former intelligence official said, referring to the Iranian nuclear program. Although Stuxnet and Flame infections can be countered, 'it doesn't mean that other tools aren't in play or performing effectively,' he said."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

382 comments

Duh - Who else would have done it? (5, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 2 years ago | (#40379921)

I mean seriously? Who else besides the Israelis a) hate Iran and b) have the technical chops to do it?

Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380155)

You missed the first part "US" and Israel.

Many countries have higher technical capabilities than Iran and have competition/conflict of interests with Iran. UK, France and even Russia to name a few.

All in all, this is an obvious act of sabotage and cyber terrorism.

Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (5, Insightful)

DynamoJoe (879038) | about 2 years ago | (#40380365)

Sabotage: yes. Cyber terrorism? No. Warfare, yes, but not terrorism.

Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380537)

I don't agree with it, and it sure makes America look like a hypocritical dick, but yeah it's not really terrorism. You could argue what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan by America is terrorism, which to be honest is the only way to win there, you can't occupy it for ever and if you can't scare every one into submission the problem will return when you leave, because you won't of fixed any underlying issues, and may of even made them worse. But i don't see the same terror that happened on 911 or with the civilian deathroll in the middle east happening in Iran research centres, at least not due to cyber terrorism (I’m well aware of the Israeli assassins taking out Iran scientists).

Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (3, Interesting)

RulerOf (975607) | about 2 years ago | (#40380739)

Sabotage: yes. Cyber terrorism? No. Warfare, yes, but not terrorism.

To be fair, terrorism is rather broadly any act that incites fear, specifically for political purposes. I don't know about you, but Stuxnet and Flame scare the hell out of me.

And I don't even begin to represent their targets.

Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (0, Troll)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#40380745)

The distinction being?

Also if it's war...where is the Congress declaration authorizing this?

Obama needs to be impeached.

Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (1, Offtopic)

bhlowe (1803290) | about 2 years ago | (#40380171)

Good thing Eric Holder is appointing two Obama partisans to investigate the leaks. Should be able to get to the bottom of things.. right after November.

Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 years ago | (#40380611)

This isn't a leak for domestic political purposes, it's a diplomatic press release concerning the current talks between the US and Iran. Basically it's saying "don't bullshit us we know what you are up to". However it's unlikely to have any effect on the talks since if they really did know what Iran was up to they would be presenting evidence rather than boasting about their hacking skills.

Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (3, Informative)

thrich81 (1357561) | about 2 years ago | (#40380727)

How about doing some research or at least keeping up with the news before spewing? One of the two US attorneys on the leak case is Rod J. Rosenstein, a Republican appointed into his current position as US Attorney in 2005 by George W. Bush -- hardly the profile of an Obama partisan.

Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | about 2 years ago | (#40380591)

"Duh" is right, since almost everyone thought it was Israel and possibly the US anyway. (I'm sorry, but your post is hardly insightful.)

Various old, mostly highly modded /. comments to that effect:

1. I'd bet the malware was developed either in Israel or the USA...probably Israel with USA support.
2. The Iran fixation suggests two possible suspects- Israel and the United States. [...] Flame is primarily concerned with countries that are either enemies or potential enemies of Israel... That strongly suggests Israel as the culprit.
3. ...would tend to prove the point that it was Israel.
4. If that's true, it is another pretty large piece of evidence in favor of Israeli authorship.
5. So, who made Flame? USA made Flame.

In my brief search I didn't see a single person contending that it wasn't Israel and/or the US, though I imagine a few exist.

Sources:
1 [slashdot.org]; 2 [slashdot.org]; 3 [slashdot.org]; 4 [slashdot.org]; 5 [slashdot.org].

Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380625)

Exxon Mobil.

Don't mess with them. They know their shit and they have the money to buy what the fuck they want.

They don't mind Iran being a bit troublesome, it's good for their profits. But too much? That'll end their game before they've built their Vaults.

And they'll use their own nukes when they're ready to break the world.

Then we'll be grateful that blessed Corporate Mother protected us.

Re:Duh - Who else would have done it? (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#40380635)

I mean seriously? Who else besides the Israelis a) hate Iran and b) have the technical chops to do it?

Believe it or not, we're not the most technologically sophisticated country. China has more honor students than we have students. Most of Europe has a more developed telecommunications infrastructure than we do; internet, mobile phones, cable tv, you name it. We are not number 1.

As to who else hates Iran and has the capability to do something about it... it should be pointed out we don't hate Iran. We hate any country who tries to acquire nuclear weapons. Something the size of a suitcase can destroy a major city... it's why we worked so damn hard with the Russians to disarm as many of them as we could. Not every country will play nice: Some of them will do whatever it takes to beat their enemies, even if that means killing themselves in the process. Unfortunately, all the countries currently working on making nuclear weapons fall into that category, including Iran.

The only reason we're fucking around with 'cyber' warfare instead of curb stomping them is it's an election year and our economy is in ruins thanks to fighting two unnecessary wars based on our President deciding to finish what his daddy started rather than leave well enough alone, and our country having a momentary fit of stupidity where we had to kill everyone and everything wearing a funny hat because a couple of our sand castles got kicked over by a bully.

When we do it to you (5, Insightful)

niftydude (1745144) | about 2 years ago | (#40379941)

it is an act of espionage and sabotage proportionate to the problem that is trying to be resolved.

If you do it to us, it will be considered an act of war.

Re:When we do it to you (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#40380041)

You're referring to a previous story that you misinterpreted to mean that the US would consider cyberattacks to be an act of war. What that story actually said was that cyberattacks against certain key infrastructure might be considered an act of war if it were serious enough. Quoting:

If a cyber attack produces the death, damage, destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause, then it would be a candidate for a "use of force" consideration, which could merit retaliation.

That basically says that they won't rule out military force in certain extreme cases. Nor should they.

And for Iran's part, if they'd like to consider Stuxnet to be an act of war, they can. Heck, they could consider Obama forgetting to say "bless you" after Ahmadinejad sneezes to be an act of war. That's the fun thing about the word "consider". But they won't, just as they didn't consider Israel's assassination of their nuclear scientists to be one.

I'm sorry that international espionage isn't as cut and dry as you'd like it to be, but that's just how it is and has been for most of history. There were pretenses of chivalry in Europe (and likely other places) for a time, back when royalty was a good ole boys' club and the peasants would be the ones dying. We're past that now, and I for one am glad of it.

Re:When we do it to you (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380087)

in other words... if someone were to inject a cyber attack on say... or nuke facilities??? posted anon due to moding

Re:When we do it to you (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#40380101)

If a virus set back some research at Raytheon, do you really think that the US would jump into another war?

They made it very clear that they were talking about the sort of attack that thus far only exists in movies, not just some computer worm that damages some equipment.

Re:When we do it to you (1)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about 2 years ago | (#40380453)

That was my thought exactly.

So if the United States sabotages Iranian efforts to develop nuclear power, and they have an energy shortfall which results in 100 preventable deaths of Iranian civilians who were on life support, this is just as bad as if the Iranian cyber-warfare division deliberately cut the power to a US hospital and 100 American civilians on life support died?

Yes, I'm sure they would be seen in exactly the same light by the U.S. administration and public.

Re:When we do it to you (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#40380113)

However, there is a double standard. Iran is trying its best to be recognized by the international community as a modern Islamic democracy, Obama is looking for more blood to put on his Nobel Peace Prize. The American public on both sides of the political aisle are crying out for another war and even the smallest thing could set off a "drone war" leading to a full-scale conflict.

Re:When we do it to you (1, Insightful)

rockout (1039072) | about 2 years ago | (#40380275)

Iran is trying its best to be recognized by the international community as a modern Islamic democracy,

Oh for fuck's sake, give it a rest. There should be a -1 "Naive" mod for this.

I'm no apologist for the US government, they can do and continue to do terrible things, but to pretend that things in Iran are better for the average citizen than they are for the average US citizen is ridiculous.

Re:When we do it to you (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#40380327)

Iran is a terrible government (heck, all governments are terrible) but their international relations are much nicer than the US. The last major war that Iran fought was against Iraq, who invaded Iran in the 1980s. The last major war that the US fought was against Iraq which was several thousand miles away from the US. Last time I checked, Iran didn't have friendly drones in other countries constantly bombing them and writing off civilian casualties as being "terrorists".

Iran isn't good, they have a terrible record of human rights and generally have a dictatorship. However, their foreign policy is a heck of a lot more friendly than the US.

Re:When we do it to you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380437)

Something very interesting is that Iran was provided a shit load of weapons during that war by....*drumroll*... Israel. At that time, Iraq was seen as the greater threat in the area. Well, the the Islamic Revolution happened. That changed things somewhat, you could say.

International relations are so different from what the average person will ever see. Making judgements on that level is difficult indeed.

Re:When we do it to you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380439)

Really? How much aid do they provide to other countries compared to the USA?

Re:When we do it to you (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380527)

Cos we know American aid doesn't have any strings attached. Have you ever heard of neocolonialism?

Re:When we do it to you (1, Insightful)

niftydude (1745144) | about 2 years ago | (#40380163)

You're referring to a previous story that you misinterpreted to mean that the US would consider cyberattacks to be an act of war. What that story actually said was that cyberattacks against certain key infrastructure might be considered an act of war if it were serious enough.

I didn't misinterpret anything. It is you who are playing with semantics.

Stuxnet was an attack on industrial control systems used in Iranian nuclear power plants.
Are you implying that US nuclear power plants are not considered key infrastructure? And that a cyberattack bringing down that infrastructure would not be considered an act of war?

I'm sorry that international espionage isn't as cut and dry as you'd like it to be, but that's just how it is and has been for most of history. There were pretenses of chivalry in Europe (and likely other places) for a time, back when royalty was a good ole boys' club and the peasants would be the ones dying. We're past that now, and I for one am glad of it.

I don't know what the Iranians have done to you that makes you happy that the US and Israeli government is dangerously meddling with Nuclear power plants and risking the lives of Iranian citizens - but the Iranians haven't done anything to me, and so I'd prefer to take an approach of innocent until proven guilty before instigating a war against them.

If you want my support for acts of espionage escalating to a potential war against Iran, you are going to need a better reason than "they hates our freedoms" in order to convince me of the need for these actions.

Re:When we do it to you (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#40380235)

Oh come on, you know full well that Stuxnet was targeting the centrifuges. Screwing with centrifuges is not going to take their power grid offline, and it's certainly not "risking the lives of Iranian citizens". You're either being dishonest, or you are woefully ignorant of how nuclear power works.

As for your support, I couldn't care less about it, and I've certainly never said anything even remotely like "they hate our freedoms".

Re:When we do it to you (0)

niftydude (1745144) | about 2 years ago | (#40380277)

As for your support, I couldn't care less about it, and I've certainly never said anything even remotely like "they hate our freedoms".

You obviously care about someone's support for these actions and feel strongly about it - since you are posting all over this topic.

Care to enlighten us about the reasons you support these actions against Iran? I can't find a reason or justification in any of your other posts, only the strong impression that you fully support US foreign policy towards Iran.

Re:When we do it to you (0)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#40380415)

I'm guessing Uranium-hexafloride stings a bit.

They should not be surprised, mess with the bull etc.

Good on whoever wrote stuxnet. I'd love to shake their hands. Very nice.

Re:When we do it to you (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380467)

you make it sound as if nuclear tech couldn't possibly harm anybody! Sabotaging mysterious foreign nuclear facilities is a completely safe pastime. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

Re:When we do it to you (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380269)

The point is the hypocrisy, as in when the US promptly killed more civilians by bombing Afghanistan just after 9/11 than had died on 9/11 and few Americans seemed to notice -- as in Israel condemning Iran's nuclear program when they themselves developed nuclear weapons in the 60s while literally lying about it.

Re:When we do it to you (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#40380295)

high-level disruption that a traditional military attack would cause

Like, say, causing a bunch of centrifuges to self-destruct? I mean, if that is not the sort of disruption that a well-placed bomb would cause, I am not really sure what is...

Re:When we do it to you (1, Insightful)

Hamsterdan (815291) | about 2 years ago | (#40380071)

If a normal person does the same, it's gonna be prison time. Gotta love how the governments are accountable to the same laws.

Re:When we do it to you (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#40380133)

And if a normal person builds an aircraft carrier and conducts military exercises in national waters, they'd also go to prison. What is your point? If a government isn't allowed to do things that individual citizens can't, then it's not a government. It's a social club.

Re:When we do it to you (3, Insightful)

demachina (71715) | about 2 years ago | (#40380217)

The U.S. law on computer intrusions specifically exempts law enforcement and intelligence agencies:

"(f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States."

This is the price we pay for electing people who are willing to criminalize nearly every action of ordinary citizens, and almost no action by government officials, even when they engage in actions that most people would consider criminal.

For example:

- torturing people
- computer hacking
- spying on people without a warrant
- snatching people for rendition in violation of the laws and sovereignty of the countries where they are snatched
- holding people, sometimes the wrong people, in indefinite detention without a hearing
- assassinating people including U.S. citizens without a trial
- using drones to assassinate people, often innocent civilians, in countries where no state of war exists while violating the sovereignty of nations we are not at war with

This list goes on for a long time so I'll stop now.

Re:When we do it to you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380215)

That's what happens when you mess with a self-proclaimed police.

In a small scale, compare it to some protests, where cops claim their violent and turning into riots. They have no problem coming up with excuses to mess with the protesters. Now look what happens if one of the protesters mess with one of the cops... they go ballistic.

So yeah.. you don't have to go too far to see those issues.

Re:When we do it to you (4, Interesting)

Maudib (223520) | about 2 years ago | (#40380541)

Ugh, overrated nonsense.

There are stories every other day about Chinese and Russian efforts to compromise U.S. military networks, agencies and schools. When was the last time the U.S. declared war over foreign attempts at espionage?

Beating the War Drums (4, Interesting)

cosm (1072588) | about 2 years ago | (#40379947)

My conjecture is that we will be at war with Iran in time for the election, call it a November surprise. Bunch of FUD stories from the Ministry of Information's various major news network puppets, and then we'll all be chest-pumping while the populace sings let's roll in the tanks.

Re:Beating the War Drums (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#40380069)

Yep, I just love it.

Last November people said: I'm voting for Obama because he's anti-war and wants to see peace!

2009 Peace Prize: goes to Obama

for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples

2010: Let's bomb Pakistan with even more drones!

2011: Let's bomb Libya!

2012: Let's use "cyber-terrorism" against Iran!

Re:Beating the War Drums (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#40380191)

Still better than Bush.

Re:Beating the War Drums (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#40380211)

And Herpes is better than AIDS, doesn't mean I want either of them.

Plus, last time I checked, Bush wasn't running in 2008.

Re:Beating the War Drums (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#40380255)

I know a guy who voted for Obama because of his foreign affairs, and he is still happy with Obama.

The reason is because Obama defers to the UN, or at least NATO on decisions like Libya. To people who prefer that style, then Obama is a good leader. He hasn't invaded Syria, for example, where other presidents might have.

Re:Beating the War Drums (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#40380273)

Ah yes, because I'm really happy that an elected guy is following the lead of those who are non-elected!

The only way to ensure peace is to remain neutral. To maintain diplomatic relations to all nations, free trade (unrestricted trade, not the NAFTA crap) with all nations and have a small defense force to guard against attacks and invasions (and no, that doesn't mean having a military base in every country under the sun).

Re:Beating the War Drums (1)

lightknight (213164) | about 2 years ago | (#40380493)

Is this before or after we attack China? Never under-estimate the evil a politician will commit to be elected / remain in power.

Aren't you forgetting that Flame is old? (1)

linatux (63153) | about 2 years ago | (#40380307)

Flame would appear to have been active for years. Don't think Obama had much say in its creation/deployment.

Leaking details to the Press could be his work - I'm sure anything that gets out will put him in a good light.

Re:Beating the War Drums (1)

Maudib (223520) | about 2 years ago | (#40380555)

What kind of dipshit would consider this terrorism?

Oh, probably the kind that fails to see how espionage can often prevent wars.

Re:Beating the War Drums (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380623)

See, Obama's not all bad.

Re:Beating the War Drums (5, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#40380093)

So will you come back and admit to being wrong when you inevitably are?

Israel has been trying to get Obama to go to war alongside them for quite some time now. He's refused. Maybe because we can't afford it, maybe because he doesn't think its necessary, maybe because his base would desert him, maybe because he just thinks that wars of aggression are bad. But declaring war right before an election? Absolute political suicide. His base would desert him, his opponents would mock him for his transparent ploy, and independents would look at the bill from Iraq and blanch.

Now, if Romney wins, we might be in Iran by November of 2013... maybe. But I think Syria is the more likely candidate. He already wants to arm the rebels, and his party wants to go further than that.

Re:Beating the War Drums (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#40380157)

Ah yes, Obama the man of peace. You know the one that decided to start another war in Libya...

Re:Beating the War Drums (2)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#40380287)

Ah yes, Obama the man of peace. You know the one that decided to start another war in Libya...

He is the Peace Prize President.

Re:Beating the War Drums (4, Insightful)

rockout (1039072) | about 2 years ago | (#40380323)

Actually he decided to commit our country to support a popular uprising against a dictator, which ultimately succeeded in deposing said dictator without putting American boots on the ground. You and I obviously have our differences if you don't see the contrast between that and Iraq2003, but I for one have no problem with the way he handled our involvement in Libya.

Re:Beating the War Drums (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#40380561)

OK, let's compare the number of lives lost (US or total, your choice) in wars under Bush vs. Obama. Good grief, it's not even within a factor of 10.

Re:Beating the War Drums (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#40380511)

Maybe because we can't afford it, maybe because he doesn't think its necessary, maybe because his base would desert him, maybe because he just thinks that wars of aggression are bad.

None of the above.
Report after report has been written explaining, in great detail, the stupidity of attacking Iran.

Iran is kind of like Cold War Russia: it has lots of proxies that can act independantly.
Attacking Iran would spark a regional war against US allies and assets that would be nearly impossible to stop with military force.
Even the Mossad's former chief thinks attacking Iran is a bad idea [google.com]

http://www.google.com/search?q=attacking+iran+bad+idea [google.com]
Almost all the people saying "attacking Iran is a good idea" are from hard right think tanks &/or are neoconservative war hawks.br./And their record on foreign policy speaks for itself.

Re:Beating the War Drums (2)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | about 2 years ago | (#40380291)

War is hell and all that but sometimes a decision to go to was is the right decision. Like we were right to go to war with Germany for example, or like G.W. Bush was right to go to war with Iraq.

Oh yeah, you mean cyberterrorism? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40379951)

That's what it's called if anyone other than the US does it...

not troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380029)

not troll at all, what was done would be cyber terrorism by our own definition. Posted anon to save mods

Evidence (4, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#40379969)

In case anyone was wondering what the evidence was, here is the relevant quote:

[Flame] was directed by Israel in a unilateral operation that apparently caught its American partners off guard, according to several U.S. and Western officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

Generally these kind of leaks, especially when they happen as much as they have lately, happen at the direction of officials. It's not an accident. The question is why are all these anonymous leaks being passed to the press? Is it because they want Iran to think we have greater capability than we actually do? Some people have speculated that this is an attempt to give Obama an election boost, but one leak is enough to do that, he doesn't need to keep leaking....So what is the purpose?

Re:Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380001)

Russia+China. Rabbit holes are often very, very deep.

Re:Evidence (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#40380059)

Rabbit holes are often very, very deep.

Nah, rabbit warrens are usually 9 feet at most. Not too deep. They aren't well diggers or anything.

Re:Evidence (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#40380149)

Nah, rabbit warrens are usually 9 feet at most. Not too deep. They aren't well diggers or anything.

Yes, but the world is full of Alices, and we are very small.

Re:Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380015)

The principal of vote (leak) early and often applies here. They can't help themselves.

Re:Evidence (1)

demachina (71715) | about 2 years ago | (#40380111)

"So what is the purpose?"

Its probably not the primary purpose but it is a pretty effective way to flaunt that you are above the law, all laws including the constitution and to flaunt that you have power.

In reading the U.S. Criminal Code on computer intrusions Section 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers [iwar.org.uk] it is interesting to note that Congress went out of their way to exempt various 3 letter Federal agencies from laws against hacking computers while everyone else goes to Federal prison for it:

"f) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States"

Someone is also flaunting the fact that they can leak apparently classified information and get away with it. If its being done with the knowledge of people like Obama it is especially arrogant because the Obama administration has been one of the most aggressive in going after people for leaking stuff that they don't want leaked, while they are one of the most prolific leakers of classified information they see and advantage in leaking. Thomas Drake, formerly of the NSA, being one of the sadder cases of a whistleblower being abused by Obama and Holder.

Re:Evidence (2)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#40380117)

So what is the purpose?

The simplest explanation is that it's dick waving.
Which, when all comes to all, just shows us that you're dicks.

An alternative explanation is that it's an attempt to bully AV companies into silence, and reduce further investigation and looking for more malware of the same type.

Either way, I think the TLAs and Israel misunderestimate the animosity this causes among normal people who could very well be hit by this warfare. A backlash may be coming, including official protests from other countries, and perhaps even independent blackhats turning the munition around at its creators (no, friendly DHL agent, this is not a threat, but a guess).

Re:Evidence (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#40380181)

You think an ordinary blackhat could hack Siemen's equipment?

Re:Evidence (1, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#40380407)

You think an ordinary blackhat could hack Siemen's equipment?

Your question makes no sense.
I think there are several extraordinary blackhats. For every one that the government has recruited, there are likely ten more which they haven't.
And they don't even have as narrow a target as Siemens - they can target any critical system used by the US or Israel.

Re:Evidence (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380529)

I work for Siemens, though on their medical devices, and, in a word, yes. In two words: fuck, yes. Hell, the girl from "Jurassic Park," who "knew UNIX" could hack at least one line of Siemens medical products.

Re:Evidence (1)

EETech1 (1179269) | about 2 years ago | (#40380675)

I have no proof besides what I've read on the subject (but that is everything I could find on it, at least twice, I find Stuxnet very interesting) but my guess is that it's easier than a PC (even without antivirus) just ripe for the picking! Something like Stuxnet was probably not even considered in the design of the PLC firmware, and there's nothing available similar to AV software you have to worry about avoiding.

The OS is not worried about other programs accessing shared memory and resources, it does it all, so no need to waste too many clock cycles protecting something that nothing else can normally access. I doubt there's anything in there to verify a number sent to the HMI is the same number sent out on Profibus. It just should be, so it's treated like it is.

Just my $0.01

Cheers.

Re:Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380159)

Every time he looks at his poll numbers he leaks a little more.

Re:Evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380451)

Maybe they were pissed off about the actions of the Israelis. Maybe they were moderates who felt like the US could deal with Iran, but that Israel wanted to maintain hostile relations for their own purposes.

Re:Evidence (1)

Maudib (223520) | about 2 years ago | (#40380563)

Spot on. All of this could very well be attempts at misdirection. The leaks come out just as talks are starting to fail, so it could also just be an attempt to ratchet up the pressure and force them back to the table.

WikiLeaks founder seeks asylum at Ecuador embassy (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40379973)

WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange has made a run for the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, seeking asylum in a long shot move that, if successful, would place him in a small, friendly South American country rather than in Sweden facing questioning about alleged sex crimes.

Double standards? (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#40379993)

When the US uses "cyber-terrorism" its portrayed as a heroic action. If Iran does the same thing to the US, we'd use it as an excuse to start yet -another- costly, expensive, and needless war.

Why does it seem like the past 15 years of politics have been "Wag the Dog" repeated over and over again?

Re:Double standards? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380085)

Why does it seem like the past 15 years of politics have been "Wag the Dog" repeated over and over again?

I loved that movie [imdb.com]

Re:Double standards? (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about 2 years ago | (#40380401)

Costly for some, very profitable for others, in fact that others really need more wars, interventions and forced putting them in control of oily resources and related management. Lot of people will die, billons will be wasted on weapons, and the country image will degrade even more, but some people at government and military (and some special civilians) will become even richer, and thats what really matters. You can assessinate, rob and rape entire countries in plain view if you are strong enough.

Don't worry, not all is lost... yet, a lot more will follow.

Re:Double standards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380417)

Yep. That's pretty much American history in a nutshell.

Fuck jews (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40379997)

Fuck jews

Re:Fuck jews (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380123)

Fuck jews

Why? So you can make more?

Re:Fuck jews (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380549)

My guess is he just really likes circumcized cock.

Re:Fuck jews (0)

couchslug (175151) | about 2 years ago | (#40380387)

Fuck RELIGION, ALL of it.

No lie is better than another lie, and all religions are lies. Unfortunately, religionists can't all butcher each other as belief in superstition deserves because they'd take the rest of us with them...

Derp'ee'derp'ee'doo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380049)

Derp!

No one has admitted to anything whatsoever.

Hearsay is hearsay.

So we're waging a prolonged attack against them (1)

Leuf (918654) | about 2 years ago | (#40380125)

Isn't the only sane response at this point from Iran to get nuclear weapons as quickly as possible to stop us from fucking with them? Then we either decide to leave them alone or go to war with them and bankrupt ourselves.

Are you worried about a nuclear Iran? (1)

approachingZero (1365381) | about 2 years ago | (#40380197)

For myself I am convinced that the leaders of Iran will use an atomic bomb if they were to possess one. So as far as I'm concerned any means used that will delay the day when Iran tests a bomb are morally justified. There seems to be no small amount of sanctimonious hand wringing here at Slashdot over this use of software to damage Iranian uranium enrichment hardware. So I am curious to know on a scale from 1 - 10 (1 being no threat and a 10 being we should be shitting ourselves) how members of this community view the threat of a nuclear armed Iran.

Re:Are you worried about a nuclear Iran? (1, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#40380257)

Worried about a nuclear Iran? Yes. Worried about a nuclear US, China, Russia, India, UK, France, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel? Yes.

Nuclear weapons are terrible and I don't trust -any- government to refrain from the use of them, either as threats to bully others or actually using them as terrorist weapons like the US did in Japan.

Really, I'm no more worried that Iran and North Korea have nuclear weapons than I am that the US, France and India have nuclear weapons.

Re:Are you worried about a nuclear Iran? (3, Interesting)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 years ago | (#40380353)

Worried about a nuclear Iran? Yes. Worried about a nuclear US, China, Russia, India, UK, France, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel? Yes.

See this is the logical breakdown that some people have. MAD. Some government actually do care, no matter how destructive the soviets were to their own people. They actually did have some understanding of their actions to the world as a whole. Knowing there would be nothing left of the world if they nuked the US. The US knew the same. India and Pakistan are at a similar point. Though as Pakistan slips further towards the militant islamist side it become less so. North Korea wants a bomb to threaten anyone, and will use it against the south, simply to use it. Israel has it to protect itself from arab states that have repeatedly tried to annihilate it(another form of MAD).

Trust is a tricky thing. What you should be asking is, what do they care about if they have it and what do they care about if they use it, and expect to gain from it.

Re:Are you worried about a nuclear Iran? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380583)

Iran hasnt waged an offensive war in centuries. The US and Israel do so every few years. Keep the neocon paranoid propagada in check.

Re:Are you worried about a nuclear Iran? (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#40380267)

So I am curious to know on a scale from 1 - 10 (1 being no threat and a 10 being we should be shitting ourselves) how members of this community view the threat of a nuclear armed Iran.

2, maybe 3 if I were feeling pessimistic. Iran is not at war, and the only countries I could conceive of Iran trying to attack are in possession of plenty of reliable, well-designed nuclear weapons. Iran is not run by complete idiots, they know there is no way they could win a nuclear war with Israel or the US.

Iran wants nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip, a way to assert itself during negotiations by hanging the threat of a nuclear attack over everyone's heads. Iran knows that the US and Israel have not ruled out the possibility of a war; Iran having a nuclear bomb is a deterrent to such a war. That's the point of their nuclear program.

Re:Are you worried about a nuclear Iran? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380523)

You sir win the internets

Re:Are you worried about a nuclear Iran? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380315)

How many attacks has Iran initiated upon other nations in the past century? How many attacks has Israel initiated since 1948? I'm more worried about Israel, and they already have nukes.

Re:Are you worried about a nuclear Iran? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380475)

For the umpteenth time, nowhere has it been found that Iran is making a bomb

Fucking FUD and misinformation (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380325)

Iran is NOT americas's enemy.

Israel is an enemy of iran. Israel makes their enemies Americas enemies. If america is iran's enemy I dunno but prolly not

Learn the fucking difference.

Re:Fucking FUD and misinformation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40380747)

The US is NOT America. America consists of two whole continents (in the common model), the northern bit of which is divided into a few countries and the southern bit which is divided into substantially more.

Learn the fucking difference :-)

CAPTCHA: "demote" - de thing around de castle.

what should happen next (3, Interesting)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#40380577)

I think that Iran should declare war on the US over it. That'd be good for some lolz. You know, like every youtube video where a little fluffy kitteh picks a fight with a doberman :-P But honestly, what are they going to do? Threaten us and Israel, build weapons, launch test missiles? Seriously, I can't think of anything they can or would do about it and if they formally attacked us, that'd be about it for them. This is going to embarrass the hell out of them when they basically are forced to do nothing about it.

Whoever is leaking all this needs to be shot (1, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 2 years ago | (#40380657)

Give him a blind fold and a cigarette... and then shoot him.

As if the US didn't have enough of it's image tarnished by the wikileaks issue. Every diplomatic entity in the world is terrified to tell the US anything because they're afraid we'll leak it accidentally or on purpose. You don't leak cover intelligence.

Find the guy that is doing this... and shoot him. If this is Obama's notion of "smart" diplomacy then he's a fool. This is beyond absurd.

Really!? No way! (1)

EvilSS (557649) | about 2 years ago | (#40380669)

Seriously, did the entire staff of the Washington Post just get back from an extended vacation?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...